Skip to main content
LLM Security Database
Skip to research search
Last analyzed Sep 9, 2026

Language Model Security Database

985 research findings · 1119 evaluated models

Research findings

985 entries

Matches every word across titles, descriptions, sources, affected systems, and models.

Pervasive Multi-turn Jailbreaks

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multiple open-weight Large Language Models (LLMs)—specifically those prioritizing capability over safety alignment—exhibit a critical vulnerability to adaptive multi-turn prompt injection and jailbreak attacks. While these models effectively reject isolated, single-turn adversarial inputs (averaging ~13.11% Attack Success Rate), they fail to maintain safety guardrails and policy enforcement across extended conversational contexts. By leveraging iterative strategies such as "Crescendo" (gradual…

Death by a Thousand Prompts: Open Model Vulnerability Analysis
Evaluated models: GPT-oss 20B, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct, Mistral Large 2+5 more
  • GPT-oss 20B
  • Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
  • Mistral Large 2
  • DeepSeek V3.1
  • Qwen 3 32B
  • Gemma 3 1B
  • Phi-4
  • GLM 4.5 Air

Autonomous Jailbreak Evolution

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to an automated, self-evolving jailbreak attack framework known as ASTRA (Automated Strategy Discovery, Retrieval, and Evolution). This vulnerability exists because current safety alignment mechanisms (such as RLHF) fail to generalize defenses against dynamically distilled and retrieved attack strategies. ASTRA operates on a closed-loop "attack-evaluate-distill-reuse" mechanism. An attacker LLM generates prompts; a separate strategy extractor…

ASTRA: An Automated Framework for Strategy Discovery, Retrieval, and Evolution for Jailbreaking LLMs
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B Instruct, Llama 3 70B Instruct, DeepSeek R1 0528+5 more
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Llama 3 70B Instruct
  • DeepSeek R1 0528
  • GPT-4o 2024-08-06
  • GPT-4.1 2025-04-14
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash 001
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview 04-17
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet 20250219

Meta-Optimized LLM Judge Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in Large Language Models (LLMs) allows for systematic jailbreaking through a meta-optimization framework called AMIS (Align to MISalign). The attack uses a bi-level optimization process to co-evolve both the jailbreak prompts and the scoring templates used to evaluate them.

Align to Misalign: Automatic LLM Jailbreak with Meta-Optimized LLM Judges
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Haiku, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Claude Sonnet 4+3 more
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • Claude Sonnet 4
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct

Latent Space Discontinuity Exploitation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in certain Large Language Models and diffusion models due to discontinuities in their latent space, which arise from data sparsity during training. An attacker can craft inputs containing lexically rare or semantically ambiguous constructs to guide the model's inference process toward these unstable, poorly-conditioned regions. This technique, termed "Alignment Degradation Induction," can degrade or bypass safety alignment mechanisms. Through iterative, multi-turn…

Exploiting Latent Space Discontinuities for Building Universal LLM Jailbreaks and Data Extraction Attacks
Evaluated models: Not reported

Adversarial Self-Deception

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a vulnerability to "adversarial conversational nudges," where the model abandons its internal factual knowledge to align with user-provided misinformation in closed domains (e.g., movies, books). Unlike standard hallucinations where a model lacks knowledge, this vulnerability occurs even when the model demonstrates—via separate self-consistency checks—that it correctly identifies the information as false. When a user creates a multi-turn context asserting…

What About the Scene With the Hitler Reference? HAUNT: A Framework to Probe LLMs' Self-consistency in Closed Domains Via Adversarial Nudge
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-5, Claude Opus 4+4 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5
  • Claude Opus 4
  • Gemini 1.5 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • DeepSeek Reasoner
  • Grok 4

Diffusion LLM Direct Jailbreaking

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists where non-autoregressive Diffusion Language Models (DLLMs) can be leveraged to generate highly effective and transferable adversarial prompts against autoregressive LLMs. The technique, named INPAINTING, reframes the resource-intensive search for adversarial prompts into an efficient, amortized inference task. By providing a desired harmful or restricted response to a DLLM, the model can conditionally generate a corresponding low-perplexity prompt that elicits that…

Diffusion LLMs are Natural Adversaries for any LLM
Evaluated models: Gemma 3 1B, GPT-5, LLaDA 8B Base+5 more
  • Gemma 3 1B
  • GPT-5
  • LLaDA 8B Base
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Phi 4 Mini
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Vicuna 13B v1.5

LLM Self-Harm Loop

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically GPT-3.5-turbo, LLaMA3-8B-instruct, and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B, are vulnerable to a "Self-Harm" jailbreak attack (Self-HarmLLM). This vulnerability exploits the model's ability to understand its own safety boundaries to generate adversarial inputs against itself. An attacker utilizes a two-session approach: in the first session (Mitigation Session), the attacker instructs the model to rewrite a harmful query into a "Mitigated Harmful Query"…

Self-HarmLLM: Can Large Language Model Harm Itself?
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, Llama 3 8B Instruct, DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 7B

Mobile Agent Channel Subversion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Mobile LLM-based agents (including Mobile-Agent-E, AppAgent, AutoDroid, and others) are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection attacks delivered via untrusted third-party mobile channels, such as in-app advertisements, system notifications, and embedded webviews. These agents utilize Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) to perceive the device state via screenshots or accessibility trees. The vulnerability exists because the agents concatenate the user's prompt ($p$) with the environmental…

Measuring the Security of Mobile LLM Agents under Adversarial Prompts from Untrusted Third-Party Channels
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-4o+1 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4.1 Mini

Latent Paraphrase Segmentation Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Reasoning segmentation models, which generate binary segmentation masks based on implicit text queries, are vulnerable to adversarial paraphrasing. This vulnerability allows an attacker to craft semantically equivalent and grammatically correct text prompts that significantly degrade the model's segmentation performance (measured by Intersection-over-Union, or IoU). The exploit utilizes a black-box, sentence-level optimization method (SPARTA) that operates within the continuous semantic latent…

SPARTA: Evaluating Reasoning Segmentation Robustness through Black-Box Adversarial Paraphrasing in Text Autoencoder Latent Space
Evaluated models: LISA 7B, LISA Explanatory 7B, LISA 13B+3 more
  • LISA 7B
  • LISA Explanatory 7B
  • LISA 13B
  • LISA Explanatory 13B
  • LISA++ 7B
  • GSVA 13B

Internal Prompt Leak Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based coding agents integrated into IDEs (e.g., VS Code Copilot, Cursor, Windsurf) are vulnerable to a query-agnostic Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) attack termed "QueryIPI." This vulnerability allows an attacker to achieve Remote Code Execution (RCE) on the developer's machine by injecting a malicious tool definition (e.g., via the Model Context Protocol) into the agent's context.

QueryIPI: Query-agnostic Indirect Prompt Injection on Coding Agents
Evaluated models: Claude Sonnet 4

Research methodology

Entries summarize publicly available primary-source security research. Model names reflect only systems explicitly evaluated by the cited paper, and measurements are research-reported unless independent verification is stated.

Discovery and publication are separate: new papers enter a candidate queue, then require human review and explicit approval before publication. Updates follow that review process, not a guaranteed daily publishing schedule. “Last analyzed” is the newest analysis date among published entries; it does not mean that all recent research has been covered.